create_damage_skill

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact damage formula, the meaning of the physical flag, and a reference example (Fire). It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but provides substantial insight into the tool's core mechanics beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then formula, then reference. No wasted words; each sentence adds essential information. It is appropriately concise for the complexity it conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the most complex behavior (damage formula) and provides a reference example. It does not state return values or persistence behavior, but these are likely standard for creation tools and not critical given the detailed formula coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the damage formula, which contextualizes power, physical, and the stat multipliers. The reference values (power 140, sp 75) give concrete expectations for these parameters, exceeding simple schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Create a damage-dealing skill (simplified),' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_healing_skill and create_state_skill by explicitly focusing on damage-dealing. The physical/magic clarification further refines the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (for damage skills) by its name and opening line, and explains how to choose physical vs magic via the physical parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on sibling tool names to guide distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.